THE KING RULES
partnership. On the main issues their views were identical; but
both were ready to make concessions in matters of judgement;
and this happy relationship was unbroken for a period of roughly
twelve years [1770-1782]. Taken side by side, Burke's observa-
tion on the enhanced position of the Crown and Dunning's
famous resolution to the effect that it * ought to be diminished'
constitute a striking testimony to the efficiency of the King-North
partnership. Admittedly it may not have possessed a healthy
form; but—again to state a generally accepted fact—the methods
of the two partners were neither novel nor revolutionary. The
very practices of which George's political enemies complained so
bitterly had been sanctified by usage during the period when the
Whigs controlled the political machine. The difference lay only
in the source of the control of the means of keeping together a
JL O O
parliamentary majority. Under the "Whigs the control was seldom
out of the hands of the party * bosses *—men like Sir Robert
Walpole and the Duke of Newcastle: under the North Adminis-
tration the control was exercised by the Kong acting through his
chief Ministers.
That George knew as intimately the details of the business of
government as any of his Ministers is both a compliment to, and
an indictment of, his work as King. It is a compliment in that it
reveals an ability to master a mass of complicated details: it is an
indictment only when it can be proved that the King had no right
to concern himself with such matters. In the eyes of his Whig
enemies his chief crime was his so-called interference with the
normal process of government; and consequently they con-
tinually portrayed him in the role of busybody. But it can
• be argued that the Constitution as George knew it was in
too undeveloped a state to admit of accurate definition of
the forms or functions of the procedure known as Cabinet
Government. What George did—and therein lay his biggest
mistake—was to ignore the precedents of his grandfather's and
great-grandfather's reigns. Undoubtedly he did so in the firm
belief that they were evil 'precedents, which detracted from
the honour and dignity of the Crown and brought little con-
solation to the nation; and as such he was bound to break
them.
The charge of meddling in affairs of State calls for a closer
examination. Brougham put it in its strongest form:
143